$19.99 for Tweetbot on OS X? Blame Twitter

New API hurts 3rd-party apps, but "it's their network, they can do whatever they want."

Software development studio Tapbots is no stranger to the iOS ecosystem, with an entire stable of "bots" available on iPhone and iPad to do your bidding. Their headliner app is Tweetbot, a Twitter application with lots of features absent from the official iOS Twitter client.

Tweetbot is popular, and creating a desktop version is the logical next step. The official OS X Twitter app is a sad and long-neglected thing, built from the ashes of the once-great third-party app Tweetie. Tweetbot for OS X, on the other hand, brings with it all of the extra features of its iOS cousin. When it was announced it seemed that it would be welcomed with open arms by Twitter-using OS X folks everywhere.

But nothing is ever that simple in Twitterland. Back in August, Twitter announced a potentially crippling set of changes to the upcoming 1.1 version of their API, which third-party applications must use to interact with the Twitter service. Chief among those changes was a general prohibition against apps that "mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience." Twitter required that all preinstalled third-party Twitter apps be "certified" by Twitter, with the terms of that certification being unknown. There was also a limitation of 100,000 users per app, enforced by handing out per-user "tokens" for use with Twitter's OAuth authentication service. The 100k user limit is soft and can be negotiated, but ultimately leaves the number of users a third-party app is allowed to have in Twitter's hands.

Tweetbot for OS X was already in public alpha when the 1.1 API changes were announced. Tapbots reacted by pulling the alpha from their website, citing the token limit issue as being the main driving factor. A public alpha would quickly consume non-expiring tokens, which could severely limit the number of copies of Tweetbot that could later be sold.

Still, the app was very much anticipated by the OS X Twitter community. Its release announcement last Thursday was met with joy—and also a bit of puzzlement. Tweetbot for OS X launched at the unprecedented (for a Twitter client) price of $19.99. It's a bit difficult to swallow, especially when the official Twitter app is free. In fact, the $19.99 price makes Tweetbot for OS X the most expensive Twitter app available on the desktop. What gives?

Talking with robots

To get to the bottom of the pricing question, Ars reached out to the Tapbots themselves and spoke with Paul Haddad, one of the studio's two founding developers.

"I actually don't think we're competing with any free apps right now," he told us via e-mail. "Twitter for Mac has from all appearances been abandoned. Echofon for Mac has been officially discontinued. TweetDeck is targeting a totally different set of users and their app is more of a Web app than a Mac app." The price for the desktop app only seems high, he continued, because of the frantic "race to the bottom" on the iOS app store. "The original Tweetie for Mac was $19.95 (it was launched at $14.95)," he points out, and "if you look over the list of Top Grossing apps on the MAS it's very hard to find anything that's under $20."

The launch post on the Tapbots blog draws a direct link between the number of "tokens" a third-party desktop app is allowed to use and OS X Tweetbot's price. In order to send and receive tweets to the Twitter service, each copy of a third-party app must have a unique cryptographic identifier, or token, and Twitter has clamped down on the number of tokens being giving out. A token limitation is effectively a user limitation; worse, it's easy for users to consume multiple tokens by using multiple Twitter accounts.

The token rules are a sticky issue for the desktop Twitter app community, since it directly constrains sales of third-party apps. If sales are limited, the amount of money a third-party dev can make is commensurately limited. This affects the support they can give and removes the incentive to develop future apps. At first glance, it looks like each third-party app gets 100,000 tokens and then that's it, but the allocation guidelines are bit more complicated.

"There's a lot of confusion over this," said Paul. "The actual rule is any app that didn't have 100k tokens in use as of August 16, only gets 100k tokens. Any app that had over 100k tokens in use, gets twice their value. We had over 100k tokens in use for our Alpha at the time of the announcement." The Tapbots blog also points out the restrictions apply to the OS X version only: "The [desktop] app's limit is separate from, but much smaller than, the limit for Tweetbot for iOS."

A built-in upper limit means developers cannot be open-ended in their pricing—the app must be priced to make the required amount of money with the available number of copies to be sold. We asked Tapbots if they knew when they might actually run out, based on the first day's sales, but Paul said that it's too early to tell. "Sales were very nice, if you look we're the number two top paid and grossing in pretty much all the different countries' App Stores, just behind Mountain Lion. At this time we have no idea when we'll run out, we'll know better in a week or two once we can get some more data on how they are being used."

The obvious solution: simply ask Twitter for more tokens. But that doesn't appear to be possible. The guidelines don't make it clear how a developer can request more; there doesn't appear to be a formal request process, nor does it seem to be a matter of coughing up a check. "As far as I know there isn't [a method]," Paul replied to the question. "We've asked and made multiple suggestions," he said. So far Twitter remains mum on the issue.

Paul was polite and politic when we asked him about what his experience has been working with Twitter through the OS X Tweetbot development process. "Their developer relations group is very helpful and we work very closely with them. I will also say they haven't changed their guidance from the original August 16 post and I don't believe they will."

Despite the limitations, Tweetbot for OS X remains a priority for the Tapbots crew. "We plan to continue to develop and support Tweetbot on all platforms for as long as possible. We've been adding new features to the iOS version and have recently submitted a new build to the App Store. We'll also be submitting a new version for Mac fixing some bugs and adding a number of requested features."

It's difficult to view Twitter's API restrictions as anything other than a push toward monetization of the platform, something with which Twitter has traditionally struggled. Third-party apps might potentially circumvent promoted tweets or other paid types of content, or otherwise not show users the same things the official Twitter app does. "I can't read their minds," said Paul, when asked about Twitter's goals and what their eventual endgame strategy might be. "From what they said it sounds like they feel a consistent user experience is of paramount importance. We and many others disagree, unfortunately it's their network and they can do whatever they want."

Promoted Comments

There's some very angry reviews and tweets out there about this. Some users seem to think they are entitled to a "fair" price, without understanding that fair is subjective.

Note that $20 is a high price in Twitter app land, but given third party access is a limited resource, it makes sense. It's clearly targeted at an active, heavy usage Twitter audience and for those of us who use it daily to check news or converse, that $20 represents good value over time.

So now... Is there still no way for them to recoup access tokens that have been taken previously? I had the alpha and beta on OS X, but seeing how awfully little I use Twitter these days, I probably won't be buying the final version (I have Tweetbot on iPhone and iPad as well). Will they be able to use the access token that I had been using, or is that gone for good? Or do I have it all arse backwards?

According to the last paragraph of this post on the Tapbots blog, you can "return" any tokens you're not using by going here and revoking access to the app.

I'm not sure why someone would need a native Twitter app on a desktop computer when twitter.com exists...

1) The website sucks

2) Some of us have more than one account, say a public one for general interests, and a private one for close friends and family or for a business. Being able to track them in one place is a real good thing.

58 Reader Comments

The thing that surprised me after reading some of the comments on articles noting Tweetbot's release price was how many people were upset with the developers. So many of these people had no real understanding that the high price was meant to recoup costs due to the limitations Twitter put on their own API.

There's some very angry reviews and tweets out there about this. Some users seem to think they are entitled to a "fair" price, without understanding that fair is subjective.

Note that $20 is a high price in Twitter app land, but given third party access is a limited resource, it makes sense. It's clearly targeted at an active, heavy usage Twitter audience and for those of us who use it daily to check news or converse, that $20 represents good value over time.

The high price also ensures that only people who really use Twitter buy the app, because once those 100,000 tokens are gone, the app's value for the company disappears and all they are left with are support costs.

So now... Is there still no way for them to recoup access tokens that have been taken previously? I had the alpha and beta on OS X, but seeing how awfully little I use Twitter these days, I probably won't be buying the final version (I have Tweetbot on iPhone and iPad as well). Will they be able to use the access token that I had been using, or is that gone for good? Or do I have it all arse backwards?

The thing that surprised me after reading some of the comments on articles noting Tweetbot's release price was how many people were upset with the developers. So many of these people had no real understanding that the high price was meant to recoup costs due to the limitations Twitter put on their own API.

So now... Is there still no way for them to recoup access tokens that have been taken previously? I had the alpha and beta on OS X, but seeing how awfully little I use Twitter these days, I probably won't be buying the final version (I have Tweetbot on iPhone and iPad as well). Will they be able to use the access token that I had been using, or is that gone for good? Or do I have it all arse backwards?

According to the last paragraph of this post on the Tapbots blog, you can "return" any tokens you're not using by going here and revoking access to the app.

Actually I think the intent is for there not to be 3rd party user twitter apps at all. They want to leave the door open for twitter integration of business advertising from some sort of web platform or the like. Business use to me seems to be the only place such limits make sense. They are high enough almost no-one should hit them in high-dollar software but way too low to provide access for human beings.

Twitter created scarcity for software, something practically unthinkable to most purchasers in the world of downloadable applications. Makes business sense for devs to charge more (I paid it) when you know the exact maximum supply* you can ever hope to sell.

Actually I think the intent is for there not to be 3rd party user twitter apps at all. They want to leave the door open for twitter integration of business advertising from some sort of web platform or the like. Business use to me seems to be the only place such limits make sense. They are high enough almost no-one should hit them in high-dollar software but way too low to provide access for human beings.

I was thinking the same thing, I work in enterprise software and the restrictions stink of the stench of enterprise grade licensing....

Actually I think the intent is for there not to be 3rd party user twitter apps at all. They want to leave the door open for twitter integration of business advertising from some sort of web platform or the like. Business use to me seems to be the only place such limits make sense. They are high enough almost no-one should hit them in high-dollar software but way too low to provide access for human beings.

It's clear that Twitter doesn't want third party apps but why bother having API for it to be possible in the first place?

If Twitter forces us to use the web, like they're doing now on the desktop, then they're on the fast track to irrelevance. Their first party apps on iOS have been garbage ever since Loren Brichter left. There will be some competitor who will give customers what they want or need.

It's one thing for Twitter to replace what is now gone with something better. This isn't what they're doing.

Twitter could/should let users who want to use third-party apps buy their own tokens for use with the app. Then the app vendor could put a more typical (lower) price on the app and not worry about using up their allotment of tokens. Achieves "monetization" for Twitter (they could even make the tokens expire), more sales and fewer worries for developer, and makes the multiple account concern the user's problem / value proposition.

Of course, that's not happening if, as davolfman suggested (and I've heard before), Twitter just wants to have the platform restricted to its own client.

The thing that surprised me after reading some of the comments on articles noting Tweetbot's release price was how many people were upset with the developers. So many of these people had no real understanding that the high price was meant to recoup costs due to the limitations Twitter put on their own API.

It's sad when we live in an entitlement society.

People making rational value decisions and evaluating prices in a market economy are members of "an entitlement society"? Please. Kindly tear off today's "rhetorical codeword of the day" calendar page and try again.

I'm just fine paying $20 for best-in-class software that I use every day. I suspect anyone complaining about spending $20 hasn't ever written software, or noticed that making it "work" takes about 10% of the time, making it great takes the rest.

The only thing that concerns me about having bought this software is that Twitter itself may become a less appealing service. The recent limits and warnings to developers of Twitter clients are confusing and offer a great incentive to people to seek alternatives, like app.net. But I expect Tweetbot will support that one day.

Please stop supporting our ecosystem. We needed you at one time, but believe we can go it alone from here on out. What companies have ever succeeded due to widespread developer support? Right, we can't think of one either. If you really want to enable social features in your app, please see developer.facebook.com .

I'm just fine paying $20 for best-in-class software that I use every day. I suspect anyone complaining about spending $20 hasn't ever written software, or noticed that making it "work" takes about 10% of the time, making it great takes the rest.

The only thing that concerns me about having bought this software is that Twitter itself may become a less appealing service. The recent limits and warnings to developers of Twitter clients are confusing and offer a great incentive to people to seek alternatives, like app.net. But I expect Tweetbot will support that one day.

You are correct. Your customers shouldn't be an expert in writing software.

The real problem isn't paying $20 for great software you use everyday (though that price tag on a twitter app definitely shuts out a big chunk of the market).

The problem is what do they do once they get to 100k users? If some share of the $2 million they just made would allow them to buy another 100k allotment, everything would be swell, sustainable business and all. But if no share of that $2 million can get them extra tokens, and if their users even for a second think $20 gets them infinite future updates, they'll just end-of-life the app.

It's really that simple. Factor that into your purchase, and you'll be a happy customer.

My favorite thought: what happens when the limit is reached? If TapBots pulls the app, no more updates! If they leave it on the store, do they just list it at $999 to discourage new purchases? What happens to the curious buyer with $1000 to blow, and the app just "doesn't work"?

I'm a tapbots customer and very heavy user of Tweetbot. I own the iPhone, iPad, and now OS X versions. It's (IMHO) the best Twitter client out there and -although I found it a little expensive- I was happy to pay for it.

Software with this level of craftmanship and that I use every day, all day? No problem paying for it.

I don't mind a company making money, but the way Twitter is going... Is there any good replacements brewing?

Yes. alpha.app.net is very much like Twitter was 4 years ago: Mostly developers. Actually, Tapbots has iOS clients there already. Netbot for iPhone and Netbot for iPad. It looks pretty much identical to Tweetbot, save missing some functionality that isn't supported on the App.net back end.

One thing about App.net: There is an annual fee to use it (I think it's $36; it was originally $50 when they got funding through Kickstarter). So it's not free like Twitter, but on a positive side, it makes spamming MUCH LESS likely, and it's also a business model that relies on the customers paying, versus selling customer demographic data to advertisers and data miners, and forcing ads in your face.

Post volume on ADN picked up greatly about 2 weeks ago when the Netbot clients were released. Twitter looks to be heading in a very bad direction, so this will be an easy horse to step off to should the doom and gloom that's predicted (basically, brands in your face, ALL 3rd party clients will have to inject ads in your timeline to keep their tokens, etc.) For now, ADN isn't as far along and Twitter isn't yet awful.

Actually I think the intent is for there not to be 3rd party user twitter apps at all. They want to leave the door open for twitter integration of business advertising from some sort of web platform or the like. Business use to me seems to be the only place such limits make sense. They are high enough almost no-one should hit them in high-dollar software but way too low to provide access for human beings.

It's clear that Twitter doesn't want third party apps but why bother having API for it to be possible in the first place?

When Twitter started they just wanted to get people to use the service and releasing an API that allowed third-party developers to create stand-alone apps was a great way to do that.

Now, since they have to find some way to make money, Twitter feels it needs to control the whole experience, apparently to the detriment of those users who've become accustomed to using a stand-alone app to make Twitter work the way they want it to. It's just a sign that the company is growing and changing and trying to figure out exactly what kind of company they are.

The problem is, how about the pirated copies? They are already floating all over the internet and may quickly use up all the 100K tokens. So Tapbot's revenue from this app may be well lower than we thought ($20 x 100K = $2M), and it may not be economically viable for them to continue to support the app. Another problem is that if they pull the app from the App Store then no more updates will be available.

After wasting $10 on Sparrow, I am very wary of spending more than a couple of bucks on apps in the App Store. I don't have a twitter account, but if I did I would not pay $20 for a 3rd party twitter client.

I'm not sure why someone would need a native Twitter app on a desktop computer when twitter.com exists...

1) The website sucks

2) Some of us have more than one account, say a public one for general interests, and a private one for close friends and family or for a business. Being able to track them in one place is a real good thing.

Twitter could/should let users who want to use third-party apps buy their own tokens for use with the app. Then the app vendor could put a more typical (lower) price on the app and not worry about using up their allotment of tokens. Achieves "monetization" for Twitter (they could even make the tokens expire), more sales and fewer worries for developer, and makes the multiple account concern the user's problem / value proposition.

Of course, that's not happening if, as davolfman suggested (and I've heard before), Twitter just wants to have the platform restricted to its own client.

That's a good solution, except that Twitter wants people to think of them as free. By jacking the developer, they maintain the appearance of being free, while making users think of the 3rd party apps as costing (more) $$.

Twitter is basically taking control of their platform and access to it. That's their prerogative, except that third party developers got them where they are now. Shafting them in return for their support is bad karma and likely to come back & bite them in the arse. You can bet they're looking at how to monetize (or kill off) mobile clients too.

Reminds me of yahoo IM. I used Trillian to access yahoo chat, AIM, etc. Yahoo kept changing their API (breaking third party clients) so I downloaded the first party yahoo client. What an ad-infested mess! Which showed me why they kept breaking compatibility, because you didn't see all those ads in the other clients.

After wasting $10 on Sparrow, I am very wary of spending more than a couple of bucks on apps in the App Store. I don't have a twitter account, but if I did I would not pay $20 for a 3rd party twitter client.

This is a bullshit statement. How did you "waste" $10? The app still works, and provides all the functionality you need. I'm about to buy an iMac, and I will still look seriously at Sparrow, as it is an excellent iPhone e-mail app, and I would like the same experience on the Mac.

After wasting $10 on Sparrow, I am very wary of spending more than a couple of bucks on apps in the App Store. I don't have a twitter account, but if I did I would not pay $20 for a 3rd party twitter client.

This is a bullshit statement. How did you "waste" $10? The app still works, and provides all the functionality you need. I'm about to buy an iMac, and I will still look seriously at Sparrow, as it is an excellent iPhone e-mail app, and I would like the same experience on the Mac.

Uh, Sparrow has been acquired by Google. A quick glance at any significant buy out by Google has resulted in at the very least languishing development if not completely shut down/neglected projects. Sure, you're probably good for Mountain Lion and iOS 6, but beyond that it's a crap-shoot. Interestingly enough Sparrow was apparently working with Loren Brichter - and we all know what happened to his Twitter software.

What does this user limit mean for open source software (Gwibber for example)?

I would imagine that the nature of the software is irrelevant, since the limitation isn't something that can be coded around.

But presumably, the Twitter API identifies apps using some sort of Client ID. So other developers could sign up for a developer account, register a new app, and change the client ID of the software. And get a whole new 100k user tokens.

Thinking about it, is there something in the Twitter API terms of service preventing the same developer from making two almost-identical apps with two separate client IDs to circumvent the limitation?

My favorite thought: what happens when the limit is reached? If TapBots pulls the app, no more updates! If they leave it on the store, do they just list it at $999 to discourage new purchases? What happens to the curious buyer with $1000 to blow, and the app just "doesn't work"?

You can push updates to apps without actively selling them on the store.

The $20 price doesn't just stem from Twitter's 3rd party limitation. Since Apple doesn't allow for paid upgrades in the App Store *all* the revenue has to be upfront. Combine these two factors and there is literally no sense in building a 3rd party Twitter app. If there was paid app upgrades a developer could make a super simple app for say $5, doing a couple things extremely well. Then continue to improve the app and with each major release charge another couple bucks. This would let users 'invest' in a quality app with limited functionality, but the developer also would be incentivized to continue development knowing as they add quality features, the user base will pay for upgrades.

The race to the bottom pricing combined with no ability to charge for upgrades is not going to make for a healthy app ecosystem. The only out is back handed in app purchase which only serve to tick off the user (specially for non-game apps).

Lee Hutchinson / Lee is the Senior Reviews Editor at Ars and is responsible for the product news and reviews section. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX.